Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-09-23 MinutesThe Fayetteville in the Directors MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING C� 1 /0-62C- 71/ Board of Adjustment met at 3:35 P.M. Monday, September 23, 1974 Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas James H. White, Carl Yates, David Newbern. Suzanne Lighton, Connie Clack. Ray Trammel, Frank Lewis, Bertha Lewis, Ronald Bumpus, Fay Jones, Sam Lewis, Richard Hipp, A. D.McAlister, E. J. Ball, Giles Penick, Lenore Swearingen, John Honeycutt, Bobbie Jones, David McWethy. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. APPEAL NO. 74-27 Chairman Yates opened the Public Hearing on the Kappa Sigma Fraternity Appeal No. 74-27,Kappa Sigma Fraternity, 711 W.Dickson 711 West Dickson Street application to vary setbacks, Tot area requirements, lot width requirements, and parking requirements. Attorney Ronald Bumpus was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Bumpus said he noted there were several oppositions to the proposed annex by the surrounding neighbors. Chairman Yates asked Mrs. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, if there had been any opposition to this. Mrs. Jones stated there had been phone calls but no opposition in writing concerning this. Mr. Bumpus said that they propose to remodel the existing front of the house and completely tear down the old annex and build a new one. The Western side of the new annex would follow along the exact building line foundation of the present annex and then extend on the East side out past the existing patio. An enclosed swimming pool is also planned. The maximum amount of residents would decrease from 60 men to 45 men. There would be no exits or entrances on the West side. Mr. Bumpus stated that the original building was constructed in 1928 and the old annex was added after World War II, and that there had been negotiations through the Board of Trustees with Governor Bumpers to make this a historical building. As for the parking situation Mr. Bumpus stated that they have .6 of an acre and there is just not enough room for 45 parking spaces. He said that the Major Street Plan indicates that in the future the City will have to take 20 feet off the back of their property to widen Williams Street which runs between the cemetery and the fraternity house. He said they could have 4 more parking spaces if the parking area were extended out to the present line but in view of this proposed Major Street Plan to widen the street they do not feel that they should extend this out. He stated that there is a large parking lot to the West of Kappa Sigma Fraternity which is for students and faculty; that they wish to obtain an off-site parking permit from the Planning Commission but have not submitted a request for this because they need permission from the University before they can do this. He said that there would be a change in the general appearance of the Ji Ouse, but the setback of the original house from Dickson Street would not change. Chairman Yates asked Mr. Bumpus how many cars he anticipated would be parked there with the 45 men as residents. Mr. Sam Lewis said it would vary from year to year, but that probably it would not average out to one car per person. In answer to another question asked by Chairman Yates, Mr. Bumpus again stated that the West line of the proposed addition would be along the same line or at least not any further West than the present building. Mr. White asked what type of structure the addition would be, IIL • • • -2- Board of Adjustment September 23, 1974 Mr. Fay Jones, architect, was available to answer this question. He stated that this wing would stay with the alignment and would not exceed the heighth of the original building, and that they would just be putting this back in first rate condition. He said that the new annex that was added right after World War II was built very hurriedly, with electrical conduits being used for water pipes, taped joints, etc., generally it was very shoddily built. He added that they want to tear this old annex down and build a new one of better quality that would repeat the general architectural features of the old house and with matching brick. In answer to a question asked by Mr. White, Mr. Jones explained that on the lower level they would put in two new stair towers as safety features; the kitchen and dining area would be under this on the first level; on the second level there would be three 4 -man suites and the third level would be similar. Chairman Yates asked if they were aware that they would have to go to the Planning Commission for their off-site parking request. Mr. Newbern asked how many people there were in the fraternity and how many people would be visiting. Sam Lewis said that at this time in Fayetteville there was a total of 83 fraternity members including married students and graduate students; there are 53 presently living in the housing unit. Mr. White asked if they had inquired about the possibility of purchasing the lot at the corner of Williams Street where a vacant house is now located. Mr. Bumpus replied that they had not at the present time. Sam Lewis also stated that he had been working with the fraternity on the Building Committee and would like to mention a few things. He stated that Kappa Sigma was the first fraternity founded at the University of Arkansas Campus and that the house was built in 1928 and was one of the first chapters to own a fraternity house at the University. He said there was a fund-raising drive going on now throughout the state to rennovate this. David Newbern adked Mr. Bumpus what he thought the effect that the possibility of the historical recognition ought to have on the request for a variance. Mr. Bumpus answered that it was just one of the totalities of circumstances that he thought the Board of Adjustment should consider and that he didn't think this building should be torn down. Mr. Newbern then asked if this retaining and remodeling the building being torn down would be the alternative if the variance were not granted. Mr. Bumpus stated that it was an alternative but was not a very tasteful one in the opinion of the fraternity. Mr. Sam Lewis stated that he might clarify this. The fraternity house and the property on Dickson was owned equally by every person that has been a member of the Kappa Sigma Fraternity. The ownership was split up among over 1200 people that have been here down through the years since 1896 to those that are still alive. These people are contributing money to the fund based on the nostalgia or the experiences they had at this house and on this property and that they want the house to be remodeled and the addition to be built to match the style of the house. Mr. White asked if there was this much concern how could the state of repair that the property (the front building) was in now be "explained. Mr. Bumpus explained that the house had been vacant for two years and was subject to vandalism. He said that two years ago the City and the University of Arkansas condemned the back part of the property as they did every year because of trash being left there at the end of the year. He said also the wiring and plumbing was faulty in the annex, and that this was a fire hazard in the back part; the ceiling does not have proper drainage and the Southwest corner of the annex roof is caving in because water has stood on it so long. He said the house • Board of Adjustment -3- September 23, 1974 had not been occupied for two years because at that time the Alumni Association was supposed to have a drive to renovate the house, and since it has been vacant vandals have gone through and broken out the windows, stealing the radiators and anything else of value out of the house. He also stated that people had been caught living there. Mr. White said that this explained the annex being in the condition that it was in and requested they now explain about the main building. Mr. Lewis said that the house was just as structurally sound today as it was the day it was built, but there would be renovation inside to provide more closet space and more living space per person. Mr. White indicated their answers had not fullyyanswered his questions. Chairman Yates then asked if the annex would be structurally sound enough that it could be rennovated inside and the outside dimensions would not have to be changed. Mr. Jones answered that to do this would be spending more than it would cost to raze it and build a new structure. Mr. Yates pointed out that this would be one alternative that they could turn to if they were not granted the requested variance. There were several present in opposition to the request. Mr. Richard Hipp, attorney was present to represent Frank Lewis Trust, Frank Lewis and Bertha Lewis, who are owners of the property immediately adjacent on the West side of the Kappa Sigma property. They own three rental structures on this piece of property. Mr. Hipp stated that the Lewises were not in opposition to the preservation of the sites of the City, but they do feel that this is an unreasonable request for variance. He said they were opposed to the traffic and noise volumeeSeveral years ago when the Kappa Sigma premises were occupied, and the parking lot on the West side of the Lewis property was being used, path- ways were made across the Lewis property where the Kappa Sigmas walked back and forth; also (to the objection of the Lewises) a large chain-link fence was cut with wire cutters, so that the residents of the fraternity might go through the property.He added that several of the Kappa Sigma residents were also noted shooting from the fraternity house at pigeons on the roof of the houses immediately on the West. He stated that the Lewises did not want to be unreasonable, however, they felt that they were taken advantage of in the past, and they are opposing due to this past conduct and the fact that they feel that this is an unreasonable request for a variance. In answer to a question asked by Mr. White, Mr. Hipp stated that Mr. and Miss Lewis did not occupy any of the three houses, but had received several complaints from the tenants, Mr. White asked what jurisdiction the University had over the Kappa Sigma Fraternity . Mr. Bumpus stated that they have jurisdiction over the actiyities of Kappa Sigma. Mr. A. D. McAllister was present to represent Lelah and Beulah Whitcomb who own property East of the Kappa Sigma property. Mr. McAllister said he could remember in 1972 when a conditional use request was made for the building on the corner of Williams and University to be used for a "Christian Center". He said one of the -rf main objections that was voiced in November of 1972 was the voluble of traffic in that area. He said the Commission considered all of this and turned down the conditional use request on account of traffic. He added that Kappa Sigmas at that time were parking behind one of the Whitcomb's tenants in his driveway and he couldn't get in or out. He stated that their concern was what to do with the traffic. He also stated that the 'Whitcomb'.sdepended on their tenants as a source of income. Ray Trammell, attorney for the University of Arkansas, was present. He stated first that the University does not have the power to condemn property in the sense that the right of occupancy of this house was condemned; and that it was Board of Adjustment -4- September 23, 1974 the City that condemned this house for occupancy purposes -- not the University. He said the large parking facility located between Dickson and Williams Street was owned by the University of Arkansas and the Board of Trustees determine the use of that property. He stated that he was authorized to speak to the Board of Adjustment on behalf of the University and that they objected to their property being counted for off-street parking purposes on behalf of any other privately owned property (Kappa Sigma is privately owned property). Mr. Bumpus asked Mr. Trammell if the parking lot they were discussing was not now being used for combined faculty -student parking. Mr. Trammell stated that right now he did not know, but that in the past the spaces had been rented out by the month to handicapped professors and students and that other parking in th's lot has been primarily for commuter student parking. Mr. E. J. Ball (not necessarily in opposition) was present to represent Mrs. Oliver Phillips who owns property to the East. He stated that he had visited with the architect, Mr. Jones, and he presented him with certain plans that they proposed for this new annex and if he understood it correctly it is designed to fit perhaps on the same foundation as the other structure. He said that in his judgment it would improve the situation of his client's property considering he had some assurance that this kind of structure would be completed, and that perhaps there would be a fence or barrier between the two properties. He stated that he did believe the Kappa Sigmas had a right to use this property and they are entitled to renovate it without any approval of this organization. He felt that it might be best to table the request and let Kappa Sigma work out something. (Mrs. Phillips owns the second house South of the Drive -In Bank.) The Public Hearing on Appeal No. 74-27 was closed. APPEAL_NO. 74-28 Chairman Yates opened the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 74-28, Giles A. Penick Mr. Giles A. Penick, 1236 North Oakland Street on an application 473 Oliver Street to vary setbacks, lot area requirements, and lot width requirements. Mr. Giles Penick was present to represent. Mr. Penick stated that his property consisted of 12 lots at the Southeast corner of Holly and Oakland Streets, and that it was improved at the present time by a small three room masonry dwelling and a garage which is not attached. He said he wishes to add to this masonry garage and make it a part of a new structure, but doesn't have enough square footage and also encroaches on the required setback on the South. He stated that he had plenty of room on the lot for off-street parking; this can be pro- vided on the North with direct access from the street or on the Southeast corner by an access from an alley which is not open at this time but probably could be opened if there were no objections. The proposed dwelling will be similar to the existing dwelling and will have a total of 740 square feet. Mr. Penick stated that the added portion would be of frame construction. Mr. White asked Mr. Penick if he occupied the property. Mr. Penick replied that he did not. He explained that they had a large area but it could not be taken advantage of. Mr. White asked if Mr. Penick intended to separate the lot from a legal point of view. Mr. Penick answered that he did not; but probably would have a fence down through there. Chairman Yates stated that since a setback variance from the front requested he assumed that it met the requirements. He then asked Mrs. Jones, Planning Administrator, what the setback point. Mrs. Jones stated that the minimum setback was 30 feet from the right-of-way of both Holly Street and Oakland Avenue. In answer to a question asked by Mr. Yates, Mr. Penick stated that he had owned had not been was at that 11q Board of Adjustment September 23, 1974 these two lots for 12 years. Mr. White asked Mrs. Jones what the status of this would be if this were a duplex. Mrs. Jones replied that he would then have to meet the setbacks; he has sufficient lot width and area and setback from the South^property;line would change so that only 8 feet setback would be required because it is a corner lot. Mr. White explained that what he was thinking was that perhaps the proposed 15' x 30' structure could be put to the West of the garage and be attached to the existing house. Mr. Penick told the Board that he had considered this in the past but that it was too far away to join with the existing structure; also that he had a practical objection to a duplex as it required that the owner keep up the yard, etc. In reply to a question asked by Mr. Newbern, Mr. Penick replied that the garage would not remain a garage but would instead become a bedroom. Mr. Newbern then asked that if the off-street parking shown would be to park cars that belonged solely to the smaller lot, and if this were so, parking would have to be provided for the existing house. Mr. Penick stated that there was plenty of room to do this. There was no one presentto oppose the request. The Public Hearing was concluded. APPEAL NO. 74-29 Lenore B. Swearingen Chairman Yates opened the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 74-29, 473 Oliver Street Lenore B. Swearingen, 473 Oliver Street, on an application to vary requirements for fences, walls, and hedges as set out in Section 2, Article 8, Appendix A -Zoning, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances. The applicant wishes to put a picket fence across the front and North side of the yard of residential property located on (SW) corner at the intersection of West Maple Street and Oliver Avenue. Miss Swearingen was present to represent. She gave a history of the house stating that she had inherited this property from her parents and therefore, it had a lot of sentimental value to her. She said that the picket fence was a second part of a long-term project to complete what her parents had started, ---(the first part was completed three years ago when a large embankment at the back of the property was excavated.) She said she wanted a fence in order to keep people from loitering in the yard and also to keep dogs out. She said she could have a chain-link fence put up, but that she preferred the picket fence. She felt that the picket fence did not "materially impede vision" as stated in the ordinance since the pickets can be seen through. (She submitted pictures of cars at the intersection of Maple and Oliver Streets from different angles to confirm her statement.) She stated that the fence would not hamper the vision of the motorists anyway as one had to be almost completely through the intersection before being able to see if traffic were coming from any other direction. Chairman Yates asked her if it would be a problem to move the fence a little to the South. Miss Swearingen said she would rather have it as she had requested. Mr. Yates explained to her that the Board would have to consider if this fence would be a hazard at the intersection. Mr. Gordon McNeal, 629 Gray Street, was present in opposition to this request. He stated that his wife had been injured in an accident at a blind intersection near there and that he, along with some of the other neighbors, felt that the fence should not be allowed as it would compound the problem at this intersection. He said that while it is possible to see through the pickets, there are certain angles at which vision is not clear. He said he had respect for sentimental values, but this was not a valid reason for impairing the vision of the motorists at a blind intersection. He also felt that to keep loiterers out Miss Swearingen could have the house occupied 118 "1A • • Board of Adjustment -6- September 23, 1974 He stated as a last comment that he didntt think any more blind corners needed to be made unless there was a good reason for them. There was no one else present to support or oppose the request. The Public Hearing was concluded. APPEAL NO. 74-30 Chairman Yates opened the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 74-30, Mr. John Honeycutt Mr. John Honeycutt, 570, 572, €, 578 Happy Hollow Road on an 570, 572, $ 578 application to vary setbacks and lot width requirements. Happy Hollow Road Mr. Honeycutt owns 2 platted lots (each 63.5' by 330') with a single-family dwelling located on the South lot. The applicant wishes to put a 2 -family dwelling on the Northernmost part of the two lots. Mr. Honeycutt was present to represent. Mr. Honeycutt stated that the present house could be moved, but that since he had a loan on this, he could not do anything to this until about 4 or 5 years when the loan was cleared. He said he had enough room on his land for three duplexes if the land laid in such a way that it could be utilized, however the lots are very long and narrow. Therefore, he has requested the variance so that the proposed duplex can be built at the Northernmost part of the two lots. He also wants to tear down the house at the front in the future. He said that he had checked with all of the adjoining neighbors and they have no objection to this duplex being built. Chairman Yates stated that it was not clear to him whether or not this Board had the power to grant this variance because of Article 4-- non -conforming lots of record. Mr. White asked Mr. Honeycutt if he had plans for any further development on these lots. Mr. Honeycutt stated that he did plan to remove the existing house and build another one in the future. There was no one present to oppose the request. The Public Hearing was concluded. APPEAL NO. 74-27 At this point in the meeting Mr. Bumpus, attorney representing Kappa Sigma Fraternity, entered and stated that he had called Jim McCord, City Attorney, and found out that he had gone before the wrong Board for requesting a variance on the parking, and that he would like any motions for a parking variance be tabled or allowed to be withdrawn if the Board rules they have no jurisdiction over this, and just go ahead and rule on the other portions of the request. APPEAL NO. 74-30 James White said he would feel more comfortable considering Mr. Honeycutt's request after getting an interpretation from the City Attorney on the language of Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. White moved to table this request until they had an interpretation from the City Attorney on Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator requested the Board also look at the language in Article 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. She said that taken literally that would prevent the Board from granting any variances, and yet the Board is granted the power to approve variances . Mr. White's motion died for lack of a second. David Newbern moved to grant the variances on Appeal No. 74-30 as requested. James White seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved. • • • Board of Adjustment -7- September 23, 1974 APPEAL NO. 74-29 Discussion was opened on Appeal No. 74-29. Mr. Newbern said he thought Miss Swearingen had a good legal point about the requirement of "how high from what." He stated he felt the preceeding section might indicate that the intent has to do with from the street rather than from the ground. He said he was very concerned about any requests which the neighbors oppose. Mr. Newbern said he agreed with Mr. McNeal that you can't see very well through the fence; even though from the pictures it looks as though you can. Miss Swearingen was still present and she commented that the accident that Mr. McNeal had talked about could have been caused from a reckless driver not obeying a stop sign rather than the blind corner. Mr. White asked Miss Swearingen if she planned to put a gate in at the entrance of the driveway. Mrs. Swearingen stated that she planned to put in a gate, bringing the fence in along the driveway far enough to enable her car to be off the street outside the gate. Mr. White said he felt that if the fence could be constructed so that it would not have to be moved in case the street were ever widened he would yield on the height restriction. Chairman Yates said that the question of visibility on the part of the motorists traveling North on Oliver Street was what concerned him. Mr. White moved that the height variance be granted providing that the fence line along Maple Street is 5 feet from the North property line and that the diagonal line of the fence at the Northeast corner of the lot be 12 feet from what would be the intersecting point of the two fence lines if the lines were extended. Mr. Newbern seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously. APPEAL NO. 74-28 Mr. White moved to deny the request of Giles Penick, Appeal No. 74-28. Mr. Newbern seconded the motion. There was further discussion on this request. The Board felt that Mr. Penick would not be denied a reasonable use of his property and that if he could come back with a more upgraded plan for a duplex that they would consider this; and that in view of the fact that there was no opposition to this request that this would be the best thing for Mr. Penick to do. Mr. White amended his motion to say that they would deny it but would permit him to come back with a more upgraded plan for a duplex without readvertising if variances were needed. Mr. Newbern seconded the amendment. The motion to deny was approved unanimously. APPEAL NO. 74-27 Discussion was opened on Appeal No. 74-27, Kappa Sigma Fraternity. Mr. White moved to disapprove the request. Mr. Newbern seconded the motion. Mr. White felt that Kappa Sigma had opportunities to buy property for parking lots and failed to do so. He stated that these people surrounding them have problems and would sell their property to Kappa Sigma. There is a vacant lot there which they have made no attempt to buy. He said he was concerned about the horrible state of disrepair that unit has taken on; they should have had more pride in the front building than what they had if they were so concerned about this building becoming a historical site. Mr. Newbern asked about the question of the applicant withdrawing the parking request. Mr. White said he thought Kappa Sigma should be looking at access to; University Avenue. Igo Board of Adjustment September 23, 1974 Mr. Newbern said he was not ready to approve variances on setbacks and lot area until Kappa Sigma has settled the problems on parking. The motion to deny was unanimously approved. The minutes of the August 19, 1974 and August 26, 1974 Meetings were approved as mailed. The meeting was adjourned as 6:30 P.M. MINUTES «� J